The Impact of Direct and Indirect Communication

By Cynthia Joyce, University of Iowa

Some of the conflicts we see as ombuds are rooted in different communication styles. At The
University of Iowa, we have found that differentiating between direct and indirect
communication has been especially useful to our visitors. In our organization, we draw
faculty, staff and students from across the country and around the world to a small city in
the Midwestern region of the United States. No one informs people that they are coming to
a place dominated by indirect communication. Indirect communicators from elsewhere,
nationally or internationally, are adept at picking up nuances in communication, even if the
underlying culture isn’t familiar to them. But direct communicators may not understand the
expectations for communication, and they may not realize that their style can be seen as
abrasive and sometimes even threatening. Providing visitors with this frame for seeing their
situations can be very helpful.

Indirectness

The well-known linguist Deborah Tannen states that “indirectness is a fundamental element
in human communication” (p. 79). We all use indirect communication strategies at times and
in certain circumstances – we mean more than we say, and we gather meaning from others
beyond the words they use (Tannen, p. 89). Tannen points out that indirectness is “…one of
the elements that varies the most from one culture to another, and one that can cause
confusion and misunderstanding…” (p. 79). In many parts of the world, indirect
communication is the norm, although the degree and type of indirectness vary with cultures
and geographic regions. One of the best resources we have found on the topic is a workbook
to help Peace Corps volunteers think about their own communication strategies and those
typical for the country where they are placed (see Peace Corps, below).

Understanding the differences between direct and indirectcommunication is also important

for people within the United States. Although many people assume that all Americans are
naturally direct communicators, there is considerable variation in styles associated with
regional as well as cultural and family of origin differences. For example, and stereotypically,
people from the East and West coasts tend to be direct, and those from the Midwest and
South tend to be indirect (although in different ways).

Typical differences between direct and indirect communication

Direct communicators tend to say what they think. Their message is conveyed primarily by
the words they use, and they depend on the literal interpretation of these words. The
overall goal of communication is “getting or giving information” (Peace Corps, p. 78). Direct
communication is common in low-context cultures, which are usually more culturally
heterogeneous and tend to emphasize individualism, independence, and self-reliance.
Because of this heterogeneity, there aren’t widely held assumptions about the context
within which communication takes place. In direct communication, the speaker is
responsible for clear communication.

In indirect communication, common in high-context cultures, the meaning is conveyed not

just by the words used but by nonverbal behaviors (“pauses, silence, tone of voice” [Ting-
Toomey, p. 100]), implication, understatement, and a widely shared understanding of the
context of the communication. “The overriding goal of the communication exchange is
maintaining harmony and saving face” (Peace Corps, p. 78). Indirect communicators seek to
avoid conflict, tension and uncomfortable situations. In a high-context culture, which may be
relatively homogeneous and tends to emphasize interdependence and social relationships,
people develop deep and often unconscious understandings of what is expected in that
culture. Because of shared expectations about behavior, the context can be altered by the
speaker to convey information.

Such issues as the identity of the speaker, elements of communication that are left out, and
behaviors out of the norm, all convey information. In indirect communication, the listener
has to understand the culture to understand the meaning of the communication. The
listener is responsible for interpreting the message; the listener’s “sensitivity and ability to
capture the under-the-surface meaning and to discern implicit meaning becomes critical”
(Yum, p. 385). Common sayings and other phrases gleaned from the sources cited below can
help illuminate stereotypes about the two communication styles.

Direct Communication Indirect Communication

Tell it like it is. The facts speak for themselves. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't
say anything. Tell someone what you think they want to hear.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The nail that sticks out gets hammered back in.

Honesty is the best policy. Being polite is more important than being honest.

It's okay to say no. Avoid saying no; say “maybe” or “possibly,” even if you mean “no.”

The truth is more important than sparing someone’s feelings. Don’t beat around the bush.
If the truth might hurt, soften it.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Read between the lines.

Take communication at face value. Handle communication to save face.

Time is money. Get to the point. Small talk before business is important.

It’s okay to disagree with your boss at a meeting. Criticism of others, especially
people with more authority, should be unspoken or careful and veiled.
Especially in the United States, criticism of indirect communication is common. Tannen
points out a pervasive “distrust of indirectness” (p. 102), saying that “many Americans find it
self-evident that directness is logical and aligned with power whereas indirectness is akin to
dishonesty and reflects subservience” (Tannen, p. 85). Direct communicators “expect and
respect honesty and bluntness” and can experience indirect speakers as passive aggressive,
manipulative, “weak, deceptive and vague” (Griffith), “insincere and untrustworthy” (Ting-
Toomey, p. 104). In addition, in the U.S., “the burden [of effective communication] seems to
rest on those who are indirect” (Tannen, p. 102); it is seen as the responsibility of the
indirect communicator to convey information, rather than the responsibility of the listener
to understand it.

Just as direct communicators have issues with indirect communicators, “…those who expect
indirectness will be offended by talk in any other mode” (Tannen, pp. 99-100). Direct
communicators may be perceived as inappropriate and rude, which can lead to
interpersonal tension, damaged reputations, perceptions of poor performance, and other
problems. Fundamentally, direct communicators don’t understand how indirectness works
and don’t understand what they’re missing. “…It is virtually impossible for a direct person to
fully understand the complexity of indirectness until we’ve been immersed in it” (Anamaria).
Direct communicators often miss “nuances and subtleties” (Ting-Toomey, p. 101), such as
how criticism is expressed. As a result, direct communicators can be frustrated and confused
in an indirect environment: they may know that something isn’t working, but they don’t
know what they’re doing that might be wrong, and, because they’re surrounded by indirect
communicators, no one will tell them directly what they’re doing wrong.

Despite these negative views of each communication strategy, Tannen states that nothing is
wrong with being direct or indirect. Both strategies have advantages. The problem occurs
when there are differences in strategies or different expectations about the use of a strategy
in a particular situation.

Suggestions for direct and indirect communicators

Tannen points out that flexibility and mutual respect are key to dealing with differences in
communication styles. Griffith and Ting-Toomey go further and offer some specific
suggestions for direct communicators when communicating with indirect communicators:

• Avoid blunt comments.

• Remember that avoiding insults may be seen as more important than providing honest
feedback.

• Pay attention to nonverbal behaviors. In particular, a discrepancy between nonverbal

behaviors and the words used by an indirect speaker can indicate that the words aren’t
accurate.

• Recognize that, for indirect communicators, it’s “always easier to agree than to disagree”
(Ting-Toomey, p. 106).

• Use open-ended, non-leading questions.

• Avoid phrasing a question so that the answer may be perceived as insulting to someone
(for example, may be seen as criticizing someone).

Tips for indirect speakers when communicating with direct speakers include:

• Recognize that your subtle messages may not be perceived in the way you expect or may
not be perceived at all.

• Accept that direct communicators respect direct speech.

Why does this matter to ombuds?

Understanding direct and indirect communication is one more tool for ombuds to use as we
interact with visitors. In our office, when we believe that different communication strategies
might be part of the problem, we explain direct and indirect communication to our visitors.
Usually, but not always, the problem is that a direct communicator doesn’t recognize the
indirect nature of our environment and doesn’t see the impact of his/her communication
style on others. Visitors in this situation often experience a sense of relief when given a way
to think about their situation. Sometimes visitors realize that this environment isn’t going to
work for them, and they decide to leave; sometimes visitors can adapt their styles when
given this feedback and become effective within an indirect communication environment.

Do you have new ways of working with visitors that you would be willing to share? Please
contact me at [email protected] with any and all ideas.
References

Anamaria, “Indirect-direct communication styles.”

http://culturallyteaching.com/2010/02/17/indirect-direct-communication-styles/ Accessed
9/5/12.

Griffith, Sarah. “Intercultural business communication: Direct and indirect communication.”

http://sarahgriffith.hubpages.com/hub/Intercultural-Communication-The-difference-
between-Direct-and-Indirect-Communication Accessed 9/5/12.

Hammer, Mitchell R. Intercultural Conflict Style

Inventoryhttp://culturallyteaching.com/2010/02/17/indirect-direct-communication-styles/.
www.hammerconsulting.org.

Peace Corps, Culture Matters: The Peace Corps Cross-Cultural Workshop.

http://wws.peacecorps.gov/wws/publications/culture/pdf/workbook.pdf Accessed 9/5/12.

Tannen, Deborah. Talking from 9 to 5. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1994.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.

Yum, June Ock. “The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and

communication patterns in East Asia,” Communication Monographs, 55: 374-388, December
1988.